559 réponses à ce sujet

[Leon Evelake]

Gaxhung wrote...

Elith wrote...

Sadly what people have missed is the fact games are constantly being made more casual, maybe for the better in some cases, but does no one remember the good old days where if you died near the end of a level in a game you were kicked back to the start? And when you finally finished the game, or level or whatever you were overcome with a sense of achievment?

You just described Demon's Souls (PS3) in a nutshell.

Actually in many ways Super Mario Galaxy is like that too, well the last 1/4. And that is on what platform? Wiii...eeeeee!

Ahh demon souls the game that exists to make you feel like you cannot achive anything. i like the game but i cannot get anywhere it.  but to the point at hand people are taking the word ]"hardcore " a bit to literly it doesent really refer ro difficulty in and of itself.

Vicious wrote...

Seriously? What elitist garbage.

That's
what this thread is about. Video game companies don't often cater to
their most LOLHARDCORE fans, because they are the minority.

To hell with em, I say, but I will add that Dragon Age is utterly casual. Any idiot can pick it up, play it, and succeed.

To call Dragon Age 'hardcore' is some elitist snobbery. The game is anything but.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

First off this thread is about the concern that the next game will be dumbed down from the previous installment. A reasonable concern being ignored by people too busy nitpicking over commonly used phrases
The fact that anybody can learn to play dragonage does not make it casual.  The game has a great deal of complexity and requires a decent investment of time to achieve just about anything, its not the most complex, difficult or whatever  . It may not be the baldurs gate or what ever many of theses bitter posters are comparing it to but it is not some super streamlined, simple made for everybody game.(and even if was it could still be casulized further)  I don't see how I am an "elitist snob" for thinking such, but at least I don't spend all my post talking down everyone I disagree with.  (Just some of them)

[Bryy_Miller]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sinferno wrote...

A game that has a hardcore difficulty needs to be balanced. Games nowadays arn't balanced and have the scale tipping to noob friendly instead of head pops off due to frustration. If a game is frustrating, but the developers did not take the time to balance the game, then the game is not worth the frustration to many players and the players will not play it. If the game is easy most players will play it all the way through which means that when the developers come out with a second game that adds on to the first story, the players who played the first game and completed it will buy the second game. The easy difficulty ensures that players will beat the first game and will  buy the second especially if they wern't frustrated and ejoyed the game. Its all about the money not nessessarily the art as it used to be.

It was ever about the art?

Honestly, people who think video games were ever made for anything less than money... scratch that, people that think ANYTHING is made without profit in mind (or at least a way to way for a hobby)... get on my nerves.

[Biotic Budah]

I think they should take a lok at what happened with Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect was a great, story driven game. One where people simply kept playing just to see what was going to happen next. Enter E/A and you get a game that yes, does have a bit more action, but lacked the story and interactions that drove the first. You do the same on Dragon Age and you will get the same results. If I want a big combat shooter then I'll go buy Medal of Honor or the like. They need to remember these are RPG's not shooters.

[Biotic Budah]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sinferno wrote...

A game that has a hardcore difficulty needs to be balanced. Games nowadays arn't balanced and have the scale tipping to noob friendly instead of head pops off due to frustration. If a game is frustrating, but the developers did not take the time to balance the game, then the game is not worth the frustration to many players and the players will not play it. If the game is easy most players will play it all the way through which means that when the developers come out with a second game that adds on to the first story, the players who played the first game and completed it will buy the second game. The easy difficulty ensures that players will beat the first game and will  buy the second especially if they wern't frustrated and ejoyed the game. Its all about the money not nessessarily the art as it used to be.

It was ever about the art?

Honestly, people who think video games were ever made for anything less than money... scratch that, people that think ANYTHING is made without profit in mind (or at least a way to way for a hobby)... get on my nerves.

True, and it would be bad business if they screw with a winning formula. But then again, look what happened when Infinity Ward got involved with E/A.

Modifié par Biotic Budah, 07 juin 2010 - 03:01 .

[Frank the Running Bugzepel]

As a hardcore (now casual) player I understand the players concerns when it concerns about the game's difficultly or game mechanics. One thing that people have to understand now is that devs are moving from smaller groups to a wider audience and you can see it in game design and character development. This is caused by many factors such as economics to becoming a major rival to the film industry. It has always happened with new forms of media, books gave way to radio, radio lost to T.V and now T.V/films are falling to video games. I know, this is an over exaggeration but still it is just to make the point that devs want to expand their audience and we shouldn't really see this as a bad thing.



People don't have the time to sit three days straight and learn to play a game. We live in a time where work is important for our survival and there is limited time for us to focus on the more joyous points of life. So if devs want casualise DA2 or what ever it's going to be called then let them (yes Mr. Priestly you know precisely that BW is making a sequel to DA:O, it's just won't be called DA2 would it. Just DA: something to do with a woman and a baby but we have no good name for it yet). At least make the nightmare mode virtually impossible

[Bryy_Miller]

Biotic Budah wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Sinferno wrote...

A game that has a hardcore difficulty needs to be balanced. Games nowadays arn't balanced and have the scale tipping to noob friendly instead of head pops off due to frustration. If a game is frustrating, but the developers did not take the time to balance the game, then the game is not worth the frustration to many players and the players will not play it. If the game is easy most players will play it all the way through which means that when the developers come out with a second game that adds on to the first story, the players who played the first game and completed it will buy the second game. The easy difficulty ensures that players will beat the first game and will  buy the second especially if they wern't frustrated and ejoyed the game. Its all about the money not nessessarily the art as it used to be.

It was ever about the art?

Honestly, people who think video games were ever made for anything less than money... scratch that, people that think ANYTHING is made without profit in mind (or at least a way to way for a hobby)... get on my nerves.

True, and it would be bad business if they screw with a winning formula. But then again, look what happened when Infinity Ward got involved with E/A.

I honestly think we'll see a Video Game Company Union sprout up soon.

[AlanC9]

Lady light doorbell wrote...

People don't have the time to sit three days straight and learn to play a game. We live in a time where work is important for our survival and there is limited time for us to focus on the more joyous points of life.

Is this really any different from how things were ten years ago?

But I agree with your general point. As games reach a larger proportion of the population the tastes of the gamer population change. Back in 1995 it didn't matter if a game had annoying and arbitrary rules because so did your computer.

[TheDarkHuntress]

Didn't DA: give players a choice on how they wanted to play the game?

So what's all the fuss?

[finnithe]

The transition from ME1 to ME2 at least made some sense in that it was feasible. I don't see how they could casualize Dragon Age.

[Frank the Running Bugzepel]

AlanC9 wrote...
Is this really any different from how things were ten years ago?

But I agree with your general point. As games reach a larger proportion of the population the tastes of the gamer population change. Back in 1995 it didn't matter if a game had annoying and arbitrary rules because so did your computer.

Not ten years ago but as you look more like 15~20 years into the past then their would be a considerable difference in terms of employment and hours of work. But that is another topic.

We have to remember that EA and BW (mostly EA) are doing this not to appease us (although that is a small chunk of the pie) but to appease it's shareholders and these shareholders are retirees, middleage people, families and people who have just started investing and don't know much about it. We have to remember that these people want results too and want what is best for their investment and if a game fails then they will voice their anger. So EA wants what is best for sales and its investors do too, so that means BW has to appeal more to the general public but maintain its good brand reputation. That means if EA harms BW, then they would fall, badly.

[Tirigon]

Sinferno wrote...

Arrtis wrote...

I say you are wrong!

A game being so easy that it ensures everyone that buys it will complete the game and never be frustrated by difficulty so that it will encourage players to buy the next installments? Sounds about right to me.

If a game isn´t challenging it´s frustrating, too - even more so in a game like DAO that focusses mainly on combat.

[Tirigon]

Bryy_Miller wrote...


Let's put this in the context of television. Rather, let us put this in the context of the 2007 WGA Strike.
Would you, Tirigon, be one of those mindless dolts saying "who cares about the writers, television is supposed to be entertainment, if you want to a story, read a book"?

No I would not - the reason being that I can´t enjoy movies without a good story. So, "no good story" equals "no entertainment" for me.
(Of course, WHAT a good story is, is different to each - I would definitely count SpongeBob, South Park, the Simpsons etc... in that category, for example, and most people I know would disagree with that.)

However, I definitely DO say that television is supposed to be entertainment.
Personally I hate MTV stuff like Dating soaps, NEXT! etc... but if it is entertainment to some I say let them have it. I just don´t watch it, not argue against it.

[Tirigon]

Biotic Budah wrote...

I think they should take a lok at what happened with Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect was a great, story driven game. One where people simply kept playing just to see what was going to happen next. Enter E/A and you get a game that yes, does have a bit more action, but lacked the story and interactions that drove the first. You do the same on Dragon Age and you will get the same results. If I want a big combat shooter then I'll go buy Medal of Honor or the like. They need to remember these are RPG's not shooters.

Thing is, while I agree that ME1 is better than ME2 story-wise, we shouldn´t ignore that for me - and according to the sales, for the majority of players - ME2 is by far the better game overall.

[wanderon]

Tirigon wrote...

wanderon wrote...

In an RPG the ease of playing once you have done it already is not just a matter of mechanics - it's knowing where the enemy is and what they are likely to do and the total loss of surprise (allowing you to prepare yourself for what lies ahead) - not to mention knowing where the story is going and whats going to come next.

I do not know if this is supposed to contradict or agree with what I said.

If I assume you want to disagree I have to say that difficulty that comes purely out of the fact that you didn´t know there is a trap that insta-kills your meelees in the next room is not the way a game should challenge you. That´s why I hate the Cutscene-to-fight moments in DAO. What am I supposed to do if my mage PC stands 2 metres away from the enemy who starts with a knockdown or stun before I have even time to cast?

What are you supposed to do? You are supposed to find a way to deal with it other than your standard approach since thats not going to work this time - you are supposed to think and react to the situation at hand and not just rely on the mechanics that always worked in other situations -

why should your mage who is the groups leader and spokesperson always be lurking at the back of the pack in every single situation that ends up as a battle just becuase it's safer for him to do so? For that matter why should any of your characters be so one dimensional in what they do that they cannot adapt to situations where their main focus may not be as useful as it normally is and they need a plan B to go to? Maybe thats why mages have defensive options available and why warriors can equip two weapon sets?

I much prefer games where they put you into diificult situations that require some thinking and change of tactics rather than a game that allows you to figure out a set tactic or strategy for your PC and/or party and then use that same thing ad naseum to beat every encounter in the game.

(and of course once you have beaten those encounters with some simple formula it's time to go to the forums and complain that the game is too easy or if you couldn't do so and would have had to actually modify your battle plans in any manner then you go complain it's too hard or poor game design)

[Tirigon]

@ wanderon: I´m not talking about situations where I have to adapt; I´m talking about situations where the enemy starts with a punisher, for example, while my character is still drawing his weapon, and when I can issue commands he´s already dead. About 90% of the (still rare^^) occasions where one of my party dies it´s because the enemy starts fighting before I can order commands.
For example, I pause immediately and cast glyph of repulsion to prevent 5 dualwielders from overwhelming my mage - but because the fight hasn´t started yet the command is cancellded, my mage does nothing and gets killed before I even have time to do anything.







And besides of the difficulty of such encounters (which isn´t so bad; I can just turn down to easy and all attacks miss^^) it bothers me because my PC is treated like a retard. If I REALLY was that mage I wouldn´t let a guy about to kill me come in meelee distance to talk to me; I would protect me with glyphs and cast a fireball or paralyse as soon as the other moves even in the slightest.
Why do games treat you like a retard?! Would a mage or archer really let enemies get near, unless he plans to commit suicide?!

Modifié par Tirigon, 07 juin 2010 - 02:06 .

[wanderon]

Tirigon wrote...

@ wanderon: I´m not talking about situations where I have to adapt; I´m talking about situations where the enemy starts with a punisher, for example, while my character is still drawing his weapon, and when I can issue commands he´s already dead. About 90% of the (still rare^^) occasions where one of my party dies it´s because the enemy starts fighting before I can order commands.
For example, I pause immediately and cast glyph of repulsion to prevent 5 dualwielders from overwhelming my mage - but because the fight hasn´t started yet the command is cancellded, my mage does nothing and gets killed before I even have time to do anything.







And besides of the difficulty of such encounters (which isn´t so bad; I can just turn down to easy and all attacks miss^^) it bothers me because my PC is treated like a retard. If I REALLY was that mage I wouldn´t let a guy about to kill me come in meelee distance to talk to me; I would protect me with glyphs and cast a fireball or paralyse as soon as the other moves even in the slightest.
Why do games treat you like a retard?! Would a mage or archer really let enemies get near, unless he plans to commit suicide?!

Oh I don't know - you were taking about cut-scenes - those usually involve conversation - most people generally get close to talk to one another without shouting across the room/field and there's always a possibilty that the talks won't end in violence if you have any talking skills - and in the end what does it even matter if your mage gets knocked out becuase you couldn't figure out when to pause and give orders - (maybe if your mage had spent a point or two on passive or sustained defensive talents he could survive more than a single round regardless of how close his first enemy was but thats another conversation) -
 
In the end the party can wreak vengence on those who knocked your mage down and out and after they finish the dirty work he can get back up - dust off his robes and move on. Meanwhile the rest of the battle was more difficult without the mage and with every party member that falls you face a greater challenge - I LIKE challenge - I don't find them annoying at all becuase when I meet those challenges I get a greater feeling of satisfaction that I got through in spite of everything that was thrown against me whether that was in the form of tough enemies or just bad luck.

As for dropping it back to easy - whatever floats your boat - I play on hard and if an encounter wipes my entire party more than twice forcing a reload I generally drop back to normal for the next attempt because I'm not into reload fests but if one member survives and beats the encounter (regardless of how many resources he may use up in the process) we carry on - just another day in the feild for the battle weary adventurers.

[TMZuk]

Bfler wrote...

" If DA2 ends up being a hack 'n' slash action game with a dialogue system tacked on to it, I'm not buying it."

Isn't that what Awakening already is?

It is excactly what it is. Awakening was all right, but nowhere a true epic as Origins.

I rather hope for LESS combat... much..... less..... How many thousands hapless opponents does you protagonist slaughter? It is silly when you think of it. Less opponents, more intelligent opponents, more varied opponents, and much more rp without combat, thank you very much, Bioware. Oh, and drop the kill-point xp. It is so damned eighties style PnP roleplay! Noone with half a mind uses kill-points in PnP anymore.

Modifié par TMZuk, 07 juin 2010 - 03:13 .

[Arrtis]

Il just remind you guys if enemies are too easy you can limit yourself.

Im playing on hard and i can only buy lesser potions from merchants and only make potions with herbs i find.That alone has made the game harder.Then limit the amount of potions you have to 50.THen you cant get wynne till after 1 main plot finish.Gotta say i need to think a lot more about how i go about fights.Then again how many people can really limit themselves to make something more challenging i wonder.

[AlanC9]

Tirigon wrote...

@ wanderon: I´m not talking about situations where I have to adapt; I´m talking about situations where the enemy starts with a punisher, for example, while my character is still drawing his weapon, and when I can issue commands he´s already dead. About 90% of the (still rare^^) occasions where one of my party dies it´s because the enemy starts fighting before I can order commands.
For example, I pause immediately and cast glyph of repulsion to prevent 5 dualwielders from overwhelming my mage - but because the fight hasn´t started yet the command is cancellded, my mage does nothing and gets killed before I even have time to do anything.

Funny -- how do all those mage players beat the game if this keeps happening to them? Are you maybe overstating the problem just a little?

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 juin 2010 - 05:16 .

[k9medusa]

I have the same problem, but I ran like hell to the nearness door with my party so I forced them to face them in smaller numbers. Are you talking about the ruins with the little elf boy who is looking for M** and the undead wake up?

[OldMan91]

and often carry with them an implication that said audience is less discerning and less worthy of attention.

Quite right! These casual gamer peasants are beneath us! True RPG fans like us spit on the faces of these worthless curs and dirty mongrels. Their wants are not our concern, nor do they deserve any attention, much less any acknowledgement.

Woeeeee, WOE to the casual gamer, should he dare to enter these forums! We shall eat our dinner on their backs, and kick their faces after we're done.

Modifié par OldMan91, 07 juin 2010 - 06:06 .

[maxernst]

AlanC9 wrote...

Diablocat wrote...

maxernst wrote...

I actually think ALL Bioware games have always been hack & slash games with dialogue tacked on...even though the dialogue part is the more satisfying piece for me. Bioware's always been a company with its eye on mass-sales, not a niche company, like say Paradox Interactive or Troika. If you look at their games historically, I don't think they've ever made a game where you can accomplish many major quest objectives without any combat. In contrast, games like the Fallout games, Planescape: Torment & Arcanum or even the "action-oriented" Ultima Underworld games often allowed you to use stealth or persuasion to avoid many combats. That's never been Bioware's style.

I'm not getting excited about a press release. As far as the Darkspawn Chronicles DLC, I suspect that making a combat-oriented DLC using environments that were (at least partially) already done was fast and cheap to do...I don't see it as an indication of longterm strategic direction. Bioware has a very successful formula and I doubt they're going to change it drastically.

Clearly you've never played the baldur's gate series.

An actual argument would be nice here.

Edit: I'm not really sure what "hack & slash" is supposed to mean here, so I guess this is at maxernst too.

I would say that a hack & slash game is one where the bulk of the gameplay consists of combat and progression through the game (the achievement of major objectives) requires frequent combat.  The vast majority of enemies you encounter simply attack you without the possibility of negotiation.  In most cases where negotiation is possible, you simply end up being attacked by a different group of people.  And this is just as true in BG2 and BG1 as for DA:O.  Yes, these games have strong story lines and you make all kinds of dialog choices, but regardless of what paths you choose, you're going to spend a lot of time fighting.  You can argue the hack & slash label if you want, but you can't get around the fact that Bioware's games are very combat heavy.

Contrast any Bioware game with a games like Fallout and Fallout 2 (I believe it's possible to complete it without killing anything) and Planescape: Torment--I think I got as far as Carceri once with a body count of 2 (Pharod and Ravel).

Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried a minimum carnage run through DA:O?  The fact that walking by enemies in stealth mode activates them and you can't leave an area while you're in combat makes me think that even playing a stealthy rogue with only Leli and Zev as companions, you're still going to wind up doing quite a bit of fighting.

[MonkeyChief117]

I think 'Hack'n'Slash' refers more to endless, generic, mindless combat. Dragon age throws a lot of tactics and different techniques into the mix.



So although DA is very combat heavy, I (personally) would never refer to it as 'Hack'n'Slash.

[maxernst]

Well...personally I would say that almost all the non-boss battles and even a number of the boss ones are pretty generic and can be handled with a small number of tactical responses. As much as I like the game for its beautifully written characters, I found the dungeon crawls got tedious.

[AlanC9]

maxernst wrote...
I would say that a hack & slash game is one where the bulk of the gameplay consists of combat and progression through the game (the achievement of major objectives) requires frequent combat.  The vast majority of enemies you encounter simply attack you without the possibility of negotiation.  In most cases where negotiation is possible, you simply end up being attacked by a different group of people.  And this is just as true in BG2 and BG1 as for DA:O.  Yes, these games have strong story lines and you make all kinds of dialog choices, but regardless of what paths you choose, you're going to spend a lot of time fighting.  You can argue the hack & slash label if you want, but you can't get around the fact that Bioware's games are very combat heavy.

Contrast any Bioware game with a games like Fallout and Fallout 2 (I believe it's possible to complete it without killing anything) and Planescape: Torment--I think I got as far as Carceri once with a body count of 2 (Pharod and Ravel).

OK, that's a reasonable definition. But then the vast majority of RPGs have always been hack & slash. I can think of a few more exceptions, like Starflight and Arcanum. We might be better off by just equating RPG with hack & slash, and having a special term for the games without near-continuous combat.